Tuesday, November 29, 2016

The following is being issued by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: The six-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) into the fall of the World Trade Center Towers and nearby Building 7 on Sept. 11, 2001, which found that fires were to blame in all three collapses, was guided by a "pre-determined conclusion," said a former employee of the agency in a letter published last week in the European Physical Society's bimonthly magazine, Europhysics News.

Peter Michael Ketcham, who, from 1997 until 2011, worked in NIST's High Performance Systems and Services Division and later in the Mathematical and Computational Sciences Division, described becoming furious as he read the agency's reports for the first time earlier this year.

"The NIST I knew," he wrote, "was intellectually open, non-defensive, and willing to consider competing explanations. The more I investigated, the more apparent it became that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing, and denying the evidence."

Mr. Ketcham's rebuke of his former employer's study is the first time anyone with ties to the agency has challenged its conclusion that fires were the cause, although the agency's two reports have been the subject of intense debate since their release in 2005 and 2008, respectively. A contingent of engineers and other experts, along with a significant segment of the public, have long argued that the buildings' demise was caused by explosives and not by the airplane crashes.

Europhysics News featured Mr. Ketcham's letter, as well as a statement from NIST, following the magazine's August publication of a controversial feature article by two engineers, a physicist, and a senior staff member of the organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). The article, "15 years later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses," has been downloaded over 350,000 times, according to the website.

Mr. Ketcham cited the widely read article as an example of the growing awareness of "the disconnect between the NIST WTC reports and logical reasoning." He ended his letter by calling on NIST to "blow the whistle on itself now while there is still time."

The former NIST employee has told AE911Truth that he will continue voicing his perspective and advocating publicly for a new investigation. Mr. Ketcham's letter is on page 43 of Europhysics News' current issue.

Cortex Zero 7 hours ago
There's this stupid site, deathandtaxes.com, that has an article basically saying that anyone who buys into #Pizzagate, or decides to investigate it, is a tinfoil hat wearing moron, and notes that "Reddit recently banned the pizzagate subreddit in an effort to stop the spread of false information, but the social media posts keep on coming."
If you could only know just how mad this makes me, that this story is being censored, and that it's being labeled as fake news.
The evidence continues to mount, but just ignore it, there haven't been weird exhibits depicting pedophilia art by Kim Noble, the Podesta emails don't seem more like code language than average conversation (and don't sound weird when spoken aloud, since "playing dominoes on cheese or pasta" makes complete sense and is a commonly used sentence), Jimmy Comet didn't post obviously questionable and troubling photos of children on his Instagram, and there's no reason to investigate any of this, so just go back to sleep, because this is just fake news, and Anderson Cooper's nose disappearing on live television during a Sandy Hook interview wasn't because of a green screen, it was swamp gas.
Stop sleeping, don't fall for their disinformation, and keep this investigation alive, because everything I just mentioned exists, and needs to be examined, whether mainstream media, propagandists and disinformation outlets like it, or not. When a journalistic website completely dismisses something such as #Pizzagate in such an insulting manner, and treats the story as though it were a outrageous as that's when you know to hold your ground, and continue to gather information,﻿

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Here it is, the PizzaGate smoking gun that some doubters have been waiting for, understandably. This will change the national, and perhaps international, political landscape. Many thanks to the ghost of Andrew Breitbart - a five year old tweet changes everything. Breitbart died in March 2012 from a heart attack.

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination.

************

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

President-elect Donald Trump and his advisers must act decisively, in my view. It disgusts me to say this, but as I outlined in last night's video, PizzaGate is all too real. I've confirmed enough of the details. There needs to be accountability and justice ASAP. Until this goes safely viral, I suspect researchers' lives will continue to end to slow this story's spread. RIP, Max Spiers and Monica Petersen.

Donald Trump selected General Flynn to be his national security adviser; earlier this month Flynn tweeted out a link (https://twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/7...) about the Spiritcooking depravity that Hillary Clinton's staffers partake in. So at least Trump is picking the right people to take this beast on... General Flynn knows, or he wouldn't tweet about it. What am I talking about? What is Spiritcooking and why is Twitter going completely CRAZY talking about #PizzaGate? Watch this weekend's video report to find out.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

The tip is that media 'experts' have continually lied about the US election. Even your Fact Checks are either wrong or distorted.

I know because I've been following the election closely, watching primary source videos (that show what Trump actually said and the context), and I've been blogging about it.

On Q&A, one of the (propagandist/misinformed) guests said that Trump called all Mexicans rapists. This is a media concocted lie. He was talking about border security - that not the best sort of people were crossing, that they were drug dealers, criminals and rapists (talking about a subset of illegals). He then went on to say that he has no problem with Mexicans or legal immigration!

When it came to Trump's comments on banning all Muslims, another point raised on the Q&A program, the media forgets to mention the context - that this came after a report stated there was no processing of people coming in from war zones (where extremist Muslims are killing other Muslims). He said the US needed a blanket ban until 'we can figure out what the hell is going on'.

I personally think the mainstream media has been deliberately lying about the election in order to support the neocon Hillary Clinton in reaction to Trump's signalling that he intends to upset many existing policies, including ones related to war. However, Trump's personal demeanour and loose tongue have also (understandably) contributed to the (liberal) establishment-class backlash against him.

Specifically when it comes to war Trump has pushed back against the blatant lies being told about 'moderate rebels' fighting Assad in Syria. Anyone spending a few minutes online can discover from multiple independent sources (the US Peace Council for instance) that the rebels in Syria are actually western-supported extremists fond of killing civilians and are simply tools for regime change. The US Defence Intelligence Agency pointed this out in a 2012 document that was declassified a few years later. Trump's reaction to back Russia and Assad is the most rational action for those wanting peace.

The takeaway from the US election is that the mainstream media, establishment academia, and the professional political class are not telling the people the truth. That regardless of whatever propaganda claim is made by the MSM, the people are not so easily fooled anymore.

Presently there are an avalanche of explanations to excuse the Trump win - almost all of them wrongheaded - that Trump won because of racism (and yet the people who twice voted for Obama turned their votes to Trump), that the polling was simply mistaken when it was clearly being rigged.

The low standard of journalism is a function of two things. Outright lying and a lack of research. The ABC needs to stack its 'expert panels' with more of those from the alternative media in order to challenge the prevailing (dishonest) narratives you run.

In terms of the ongoing Trump election you would do well to visit the Trump is Right blog. It is run by a friend of mine who lives in Pennsylvania. Both himself and myself fully backed Trump the entire way through the election as part of the alternative/social media scene:

Where-the-F*** were the protests for attacking Libya, for sponsoring the Proxy War in Syria (spearheaded by extremists), for the drone strikes, for backing a neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine, for the non-prosecution of 1% criminals that smashed the economy via acts of mortgage fraud (including derivatives fraud), for failing to prosecute the previous Administration Neocons who launched illegal wars and authorised torture, for the the non-vetoing of detention-without-trial bills and other criminal activity? I'm not against protesting, but there looks like a double standard here. The current administration would need to torture a puppy (an animal) live on TV to get any kind of reaction (Pilger was right about people being hypnotised).

The FBI just "concluded" it's not going to do a damn thing about the raging pedophilia, occult worship, and possible trafficking/murder of young children outed by WikiLeaks and the 650,000 emails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop. Hey, man, guess they're "With Her." And with Satanism. And child rape. Because that's what is in the emails, researchers believe, and if amateur researchers on the Internet can lay out a convincing case for precisely what's going on, why can't the Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION?

All respect lost. No different from the corrupt secret police forces in third world countries that side with the powerful incumbent or party, over basic rule of law.

Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman is a child abuser, based on new leaked Wikileaks emails pieced together by researchers. He and those close to him, including the Clinton family, may have also engaged in ritualistic cannibalism/sacrifice of minors. I so wish this weren't the truth. Hillary's entire inner circle is implicated; NYPD chief is personally DISGUSTED! More information: https://twitter.com/d_seaman/status/7...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy5Pr... (my in-depth video on what researchers pieced together)

Saturday, November 5, 2016

The polls are tightening as well as the growing investigation around the Clintons and their foundation. Days before the presidential election voters are faced with an unprecedented dilemma – will they vote for a candidate facing criminal prosecution?

Friday, November 4, 2016

"As we’ve reported here over the past 48 hours, details have emerged from the FBI’s reopened investigation into Hillary’s emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop that SERIOUS ADDITIONAL crimes were under investigation, unrelated to the email server case, involving among other things, child trafficking. Wikileaks has just released perhaps the biggest Bombshell yet, spreading like wildfire across the web, revealing emails “showing how the Clintons supported child stealer Laura Silsby” including an email “where they are literally pricing how much it costs to transport children”.

Thursday, November 3, 2016

With governors as new political targets, Saudi Arabia has again expanded its already formidable array of lobbying firms. Following a September surge that brought the tally to 10, an October expansion now brings the total to 14. The influence spending spree has spanned nearly a year and has coincided with three major developments: Saudi Arabia's war and blockade on Yemen, which […]

The American journalist, Edward Bernays, is often described as the man who invented modern propaganda.The nephew of Sigmund Freud, the pioneer of psycho-analysis, it was Bernays who coined the term “public relations” as a euphemism for spin and its deceptions. In 1929, he persuaded feminists to promote cigarettes for women by smoking in the New York Easter Parade – behaviour then considered outlandish. One feminist, Ruth Booth, declared, “Women! Light another torch of freedom! Fight another sex taboo!” Bernays’ influence extended far beyond advertising. His greatest success was his role in convincing the American public to join the slaughter of the First World War. The secret, he said, was “engineering the consent” of people in order to “control and regiment [them] according to our will without their knowing about it”. He described this as “the true ruling power in our society” and called it an “invisible government”. Today, the invisible government has never been more powerful and less understood. In my career as a journalist and film-maker, I have never known propaganda to insinuate our lives and as it does now and to go unchallenged. Imagine two cities. Both are under siege by the forces of the government of that country. Both cities are occupied by fanatics, who commit terrible atrocities, such as beheading people. But there is a vital difference. In one siege, the government soldiers are described as liberators by Western reporters embedded with them, who enthusiastically report their battles and air strikes. There are front page pictures of these heroic soldiers giving a V-sign for victory. There is scant mention of civilian casualties. In the second city – in another country nearby – almost exactly the same is happening. Government forces are laying siege to a city controlled by the same breed of fanatics. The difference is that these fanatics are supported, supplied and armed by “us” – by the United States and Britain. They even have a media centre that is funded by Britain and America. Another difference is that the government soldiers laying siege to this city are the bad guys, condemned for assaulting and bombing the city – which is exactly what the good soldiers do in the first city. Confusing? Not really. Such is the basic double standard that is the essence of propaganda. I am referring, of course, to the current siege of the city of Mosul by the government forces of Iraq, who are backed by the United States and Britain and to the siege of Aleppo by the government forces of Syria, backed by Russia. One is good; the other is bad. What is seldom reported is that both cities would not be occupied by fanatics and ravaged by war if Britain and the United States had not invaded Iraq in 2003. That criminal enterprise was launched on lies strikingly similar to the propaganda that now distorts our understanding of the civil war in Syria. Without this drumbeat of propaganda dressed up as news, the monstrous ISIS and Al-Qaida and al-Nusra and the rest of the jihadist gang might not exist, and the people of Syria might not be fighting for their lives today. Some may remember in 2003 a succession of BBC reporters turning to the camera and telling us that Blair was “vindicated” for what turned out to be the crime of the century. The US television networks produced the same validation for George W. Bush. Fox News brought on Henry Kissinger to effuse over Colin Powell’s fabrications. The same year, soon after the invasion, I filmed an interview in Washington with Charles Lewis, the renowned American investigative journalist. I asked him, “What would have happened if the freest media in the world had seriously challenged what turned out to be crude propaganda?” He replied that if journalists had done their job, “there is a very, very good chance we would not have gone to war in Iraq”. It was a shocking statement, and one supported by other famous journalists to whom I put the same question — Dan Rather of CBS, David Rose of the Observer and journalists and producers in the BBC, who wished to remain anonymous. In other words, had journalists done their job, had they challenged and investigated the propaganda instead of amplifying it, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today, and there would be no ISIS and no siege of Aleppo or Mosul. There would have been no atrocity on the London Underground on 7th July 2005. There would have been no flight of millions of refugees; there would be no miserable camps. When the terrorist atrocity happened in Paris last November, President Francoise Hollande immediately sent planes to bomb Syria – and more terrorism followed, predictably, the product of Hollande’s bombast about France being “at war” and “showing no mercy”. That state violence and jihadist violence feed off each other is the truth that no national leader has the courage to speak. “When the truth is replaced by silence,” said the Soviet dissident Yevtushenko, “the silence is a lie.” The attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya, the attack on Syria happened because the leader in each of these countries was not a puppet of the West. The human rights record of a Saddam or a Gaddafi was irrelevant. They did not obey orders and surrender control of their country. The same fate awaited Slobodan Milosevic once he had refused to sign an “agreement” that demanded the occupation of Serbia and its conversion to a market economy. His people were bombed, and he was prosecuted in The Hague. Independence of this kind is intolerable. As WikLeaks has revealed, it was only when the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in 2009 rejected an oil pipeline, running through his country from Qatar to Europe, that he was attacked. From that moment, the CIA planned to destroy the government of Syria with jihadist fanatics – the same fanatics currently holding the people of Mosul and eastern Aleppo hostage. Why is this not news? The former British Foreign Office official Carne Ross, who was responsible for operating sanctions against Iraq, told me: “We would feed journalists factoids of sanitised intelligence, or we would freeze them out. That is how it worked.” The West’s medieval client, Saudi Arabia – to which the US and Britain sell billions of dollars’ worth of arms – is at present destroying Yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half the children are malnourished. Look on YouTube and you will see the kind of massive bombs – “our” bombs – that the Saudis use against dirt-poor villages, and against weddings, and funerals. The explosions look like small atomic bombs. The bomb aimers in Saudi Arabia work side-by-side with British officers. This fact is not on the evening news. Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education – Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia — and with careers on the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post. These organisations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT. And they love war. While they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless women, including the right to life. In 2011, Libya, then a modern state, was destroyed on the pretext that Muammar Gaddafi was about to commit genocide on his own people. That was the incessant news; and there was no evidence. It was a lie. In fact, Britain, Europe and the United States wanted what they like to call “regime change” in Libya, the biggest oil producer in Africa. Gaddafi’s influence in the continent and, above all, his independence were intolerable. So he was murdered with a knife in his rear by fanatics, backed by America, Britain and France. Hillary Clinton cheered his gruesome death for the camera, declaring, “We came, we saw, he died!” The destruction of Libya was a media triumph. As the war drums were beaten, Jonathan Freedland wrote in the Guardian: “Though the risks are very real, the case for intervention remains strong.” Intervention — what a polite, benign, Guardian word, whose real meaning, for Libya, was death and destruction. According to its own records, Nato launched 9,700 “strike sorties” against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. They included missiles with uranium warheads. Look at the photographs of the rubble of Misurata and Sirte, and the mass graves identified by the Red Cross. The Unicef report on the children killed says, “most [of them] under the age of ten”. As a direct consequence, Sirte became the capital of ISIS. Ukraine is another media triumph. Respectable liberal newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Guardian, and mainstream broadcasters such as the BBC, NBC, CBS, CNN have played a critical role in conditioning their viewers to accept a new and dangerous cold war. All have misrepresented events in Ukraine as a malign act by Russia when, in fact, the coup in Ukraine in 2014 was the work of the United States, aided by Germany and Nato. This inversion of reality is so pervasive that Washington’s military intimidation of Russia is not news; it is suppressed behind a smear and scare campaign of the kind I grew up with during the first cold war. Once again, the Ruskies are coming to get us, led by another Stalin, whom The Economist depicts as the devil. The suppression of the truth about Ukraine is one of the most complete news blackouts I can remember. The fascists who engineered the coup in Kiev are the same breed that backed the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Of all the scares about the rise of fascist anti-Semitism in Europe, no leader ever mentions the fascists in Ukraine – except Vladimir Putin, but he does not count. Many in the Western media have worked hard to present the ethnic Russian-speaking population of Ukraine as outsiders in their own country, as agents of Moscow, almost never as Ukrainians seeking a federation within Ukraine and as Ukrainian citizens resisting a foreign-orchestrated coup against their elected government. There is almost the joie d’esprit of a class reunion of warmongers. The drum-beaters of the Washington Post inciting war with Russia are the very same editorial writers who published the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. To most of us, the American presidential campaign is a media freak show, in which Donald Trump is the arch villain. But Trump is loathed by those with power in the United States for reasons that have little to do with his obnoxious behaviour and opinions. To the invisible government in Washington, the unpredictable Trump is an obstacle to America’s design for the 21st century. This is to maintain the dominance of the United States and to subjugate Russia, and, if possible, China. To the militarists in Washington, the real problem with Trump is that, in his lucid moments, he seems not to want a war with Russia; he wants to talk with the Russian president, not fight him; he says he wants to talk with the president of China. In the first debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump promised not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into a conflict. He said, “I would certainly not do first strike. Once the nuclear alternative happens, it’s over.” That was not news. Did he really mean it? Who knows? He often contradicts himself. But what is clear is that Trump is considered a serious threat to the status quo maintained by the vast national security machine that runs the United States, regardless of who is in the White House. The CIA wants him beaten. The Pentagon wants him beaten. The media wants him beaten. Even his own party wants him beaten. He is a threat to the rulers of the world – unlike Clinton who has left no doubt she is prepared to go to war with nuclear-armed Russia and China. Clinton has the form, as she often boasts. Indeed, her record is proven. As a senator, she backed the bloodbath in Iraq. When she ran against Obama in 2008, she threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran. As Secretary of State, she colluded in the destruction of governments in Libya and Honduras and set in train the baiting of China. She has now pledged to support a No Fly Zone in Syria — a direct provocation for war with Russia. Clinton may well become the most dangerous president of the United States in my lifetime –a distinction for which the competition is fierce. Without a shred of evidence, she has accused Russia of supporting Trump and hacking her emails. Released by WikiLeaks, these emails tell us that what Clinton says in private, in speeches to the rich and powerful, is the opposite of what she says in public. That is why silencing and threatening Julian Assange is so important. As the editor of WikiLeaks, Assange knows the truth. And let me assure those who are concerned, he is well, and WikiLeaks is operating on all cylinders. Today, the greatest build-up of American-led forces since World War Two is under way – in the Caucasus and eastern Europe, on the border with Russia, and in Asia and the Pacific, where China is the target. Keep that in mind when the presidential election circus reaches its finale on November 8th, If the winner is Clinton, a Greek chorus of witless commentators will celebrate her coronation as a great step forward for women. None will mention Clinton’s victims: the women of Syria, the women of Iraq, the women of Libya. None will mention the civil defence drills being conducted in Russia. None will recall Edward Bernays’ “torches of freedom”. George Bush’s press spokesman once called the media “complicit enablers”. Coming from a senior official in an administration whose lies, enabled by the media, caused such suffering, that description is a warning from history. In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: “Before every major aggression, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack. In the propaganda system, it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons.” This is adapted from an address to the Sheffield Festival of Words, Sheffield, England. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/28/inside-the-invisible-government-war-propaganda-clinton-trump/